In the campaign of 2012, many know the candidate Obama is against coal because it’s unhealthy for the environment. Obama wants to get rid of coal plants around the country while Romney supports the importance of these jobs. Understanding our largest industry is economically essential to Appalachia. The coal industry takes part in global warming and that is the reason Obama is against it. I believe the coal industry should stay so jobs are not taken away and because, although global warming is important, the world is still going to end whether or not the coal industry is there.
If the coal industry was demolished, many hard-working Americans would go jobless. The industry may not be popular throughout the whole country, but many men of the Appalachian region depend on it. Many families’ fundamental foundations consist entirely on the coal mines. Without it, some would be limited on other places to work while still making enough money to support a family. Not every America’s answer is to go to college. In some families, it is unthinkable to send a child to college due to lack of money. By having the coal mine, it gives some the opportunity to still make decent money with the education they can. It would also be hard to provide jobs in the area of the coal miners because our economy is already having a tough time supporting those without coal mining jobs let alone supplying them for people in the mines.
Another reason why the Obama administration should be kept the coal industry alive is because the world is going to end whether people realize it or not. As one can help prevent global warming, I think it will continue anyways with or without the coal industry. Other countries in the world help contribute to global warming with all the pollution from buildings, power plants, and cars. Basically, other places are going to contribute to global warming so it is still going to occur with or without coal.
In shaping the area of Appalachia, coal plays a giant job in it. Coal companies should be kept around to help the men who depend on it support their family and because global warming is an issue anyways. Obama should look at the destruction of our economy if he gets rid of the coal jobs. Our economy is already terrible, why would one want to make it worse because they are trying to save our already damaged environment?
-M
8 comments:
Saying that the world is going to end with or without coal is irrelevant, true enough the world will end but this wont happen for billions of years. I would like to see more on what Obama does want instead of coal, if he is against it then what is he for? k
You make an interesting argument. If I may ask, though, why did you choose the ending of the world as an arguement for why we should keep coal around? I admit it was certainly a unique choice, and I'm curious about the thought process behind it.
I mentioned about the world ending because most relate global warming to how the world will end. Therefore, my idea was relevant in a way. Obama said he wants to do more for the enviorment, but at the same time, I never hear about his plans on improving it. Are you for or against having coal? -M
I'm for coal. I honestly didn't know that coal was another way to pollute the environment until recently, because I don't look at it like that. Appalachia's been mining coal for hundreds of years, and if it hasn't been a big enough problem with the environment all this time, then why is Obama bashing it now? This is the first year I've heard politicians complaining about coal, so Obama's obviously making it a bigger deal than it really is. I really liked your point of view on this!
I chose the world ending as an argument because if that was not a concern, why would it matter if our enviorment was taken care of anyways? What do you think would happen if we keep using coal? -M
I agree! Why is coal all of a sudden a big problem with the enviorment when it wasn't before? We have had coal around for so long,and still have yet to see major affects. Thank you! -M
If we keep using coal...everything will stay the same...the world is screwed anyway, there's a lot more going into 'global warming' and environmental degredation than coal... so why put people out of work?
I understand the importance of these jobs, but the flaw I see in your view is that no matter what president is elected, coal is temporary. Our "greatest resource" will only last for a few more generations and then no one will be able to save coal jobs.
Also, mechanization is destroying jobs just as fast as any regulation. The CEO's of these massive companies oppose every regulation that costs them, but accept any advance in technology that saves them money. Keep in mind, they do this as they sit on billions.
-L
Post a Comment